Thanks for the effort OP
Curious why Romanians didn't undercut the Hungarians, is there a regional skew introduced somewhere because of pricing or numbers ? Here in London didn't think there'd be enough expensive Roms to change the generally perceived positioning.
Interesting question re Romanian SPs vs Hungarians. Looking at the data the short answer is that Romanians aren't undercutting Hungarians, and it isn't a regional-mix artefact. If anything, the opposite is true at the top end of the market.
== Headline (1h incall, p99 capped) ==| Nationality | n | Median | Mean | p75 | p90 |
| Romanian | 715 | £130 | £135 | £150 | £180 |
| Hungarian | 298 | £100 | £114 | £130 | £150 |
== Is it a regional skew? ==No, and it actually runs the other way to what you'd expect. 55% of Hungarians in the dataset are in London vs only 28% of Romanians. London is the highest-priced region, so if anything the Hungarian headline is being *lifted* by its London-heavy mix, not suppressed.
If I standardise both nationalities to the combined regional distribution (i.e. ask "what would each look like if their regional mix matched the overall market?"):
- Romanian standardised median: £128 (raw £130)
- Hungarian standardised median: £107 (raw £100)
The ~£20–30 gap barely moves.
== Within-region check (regions with n>=15 for both) ==| Region | Hungarian median | Romanian median | Gap | n RO / n HU |
| London | £100 | £120 | +£20 | 200 / 164 |
| South East | £120 | £140 | +£20 | 89 / 38 |
| West Midlands | £100 | £120 | +£20 | 65 / 31 |
| East of England | £120 | £130 | +£10 | 91 / 19 |
Same direction everywhere, so it's not Simpson's paradox.
== London top end ==This is where it gets interesting. In London specifically, Romanians don't just have a higher median — the premium tier is meaningfully deeper:
| London 1h incall bracket | Hungarian | Romanian |
| Total London profiles (any rate) | 162 | 188 |
| >= £150 | 23 (14%) | 63 (34%) |
| >= £200 | 5 (3%) | 26 (14%) |
| >= £250 | 3 | 6 |
So roughly 1 in 3 Romanian London profiles charges £150+, vs 1 in 7 Hungarian. At the £200+ mark the ratio widens further (~14% vs ~3%). And the top of the Romanian London tier sits at £350 for 1h incall (vs a Hungarian max around £250).
Example:
External Link/Members OnlyCrucially, the premium Romanian profiles aren't fresh listings with aspirational pricing. a chunk of them have 50–160+ all-positive ratings, so the rates seem sustainable.
== Why might the perception differ from the data? ==
A few guesses (not claims — the data just shows the prices):
- "generally perceived positioning" may come from street-based / low-end ads or the bottom quartile of SWs, which isn't what this dataset captures. AdultWork skews toward independent profiles who have chosen to list with rates, which is a self-selected slice.
- Agencies in London explicitly market Eastern European girls as a premium category; the Romanian sample here includes several profiles in Knightsbridge, Kensington, Covent Garden and Mayfair-adjacent areas.
- Hungarian volume in London is disproportionately concentrated in the £80–£120 band, which may be what drives the "standard" perception — it's the mode, but the Romanian distribution is pulled right by a real premium cohort.
